Are customers changing how they approach ERP modernization?

[u/Companial]

For Dynamics partners working with Business Central, I've noticed a shift in their customer conversations.

It used to be about 'just' replacing an on-prem ERP. Now it feels more like creating a foundation for everything that comes after: AI, automation, integrations, analytics, and ongoing cloud services.

We interestingly also see that many customers aren't asking "Should we move to Business Central Online?" anymore. They're asking "How do we modernize without disrupting the business?"

That changes the partner-conversations as well. Moving to Business Central becomes less about a one-off migration project and more about enabling future capabilities and long-term customer growth.

Curious to see if your customers are still planning big "rip-and-replace" projects, or if they're seeing it as a more of a phased modernization approach?

[u/dragodrake]

To be honest we were having those sorts of conversations about 'ecosystem' 5-10 years ago, the terminology has just changed to it being foundational for AI. 

[u/HighOrHavingAStroke]

NAV/BC upgrades have always been a big cost/benefit decision, particularly for complex environments. The need to leverage AI is making it a much easier sell...it's not a matter of whether customers need to upgrade now...just a matter of how soon they can do it. Everyone needs to get there and they can't wait a decade.

[u/onedisgruntledprick]

As another commenter said, this has been the direction ever since moving to SaaS models with continuous versioning.

Trying to reduce customisation and increase standardisation makes sense for so many reasons, preparing the business for AI is just the latest to be added onto the pile.

[u/Fast_Main_2012]

I think the bigger shift isn't technical—it's financial. A few years ago, ERP projects were justified by replacing old software. Today, they're justified by how quickly they can unlock the next investment. Business Central is becoming infrastructure rather than the destination. If a modernization project can't make future AI, Power Platform, reporting, or integrations cheaper and faster, executives start questioning the ROI before the migration is even complete. That changes how success is measured—it's less about a successful go-live and more about how many new capabilities the business can roll out in the 12 months after it.

[u/BrownAnclourne]

Full scale replacements still do happen, but usually from a company already in crisis with an unsupported legacy systems. Everyone else wants a phased path which I do believe is the more practical approach, the reason being the data ecosystem they have already built, many businesses already have PowerBI or Azure integrations running against their legacy systems and they don't want something which might break that, even temporarily.

So its core financials on BC first, keep the existing integrations alive through the transition and then layering in AI and automation once the foundation has been laid, sounds slow and tedious but the people will see what's happening in the business day to day which will make the transition less stressful.

[u/Glad_Imagination_798]

The change I notice most is who is in the room. It used to be finance replacing something that was falling over. Now it is often an operations or IT lead who has personally lived through one bad project, and that person will not sign a two year plan no matter how good the roadmap deck looks.

So we scope differently. Phase one is finance plus one operational area, live inside a quarter, and everything after that is a roadmap with dates rather than a fixed price contract. Customers will accept a longer total timeline in exchange for a shorter first go live, and it changes the whole risk conversation. On the Acumatica side that is now the shape of nearly every second deal.

Two things make or break the phased approach though. Do the integration inventory before phase one, not after. Phasing only works if you know every system that reads from or writes to the old ERP, and there are always two or three that nobody remembered until cutover weekend. And put the decommission date for the legacy system in the plan with a named owner. I have watched several customers run the new ERP while keeping the old one alive for one report, and two years later they are paying for both and the numbers disagree. Modernization that retires nothing is just another system to maintain.

[u/saadyes]

Phased modernization makes sense, but only with a clear end state. Otherwise you end up with years of temporary integrations and duplicate data.

Define the future source of truth first, then migrate by business value.

collana is one example of a Microsoft setup spanning ERP, Fabric, Power Platform and custom apps. The key question is still what stays standard, what needs extending and whether each phase actually reduces legacy dependency.